Voting in House.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 885, 5 October 1933, Page 8

Voting in House .

Comfortable Win

Government Tested on Two Divisions. (“ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 5. QOMFORTABLE majorities were scored by the Government last night on two successive divisions, the issues being the no-confidence motion and the exchange question. Mr M’Dougall (Mataura) deserted the Government and, with four Independents, accompanied the Labour Party into the lobby. The Independents were Messrs Stallworthy, Atmore, RushwOrth and Wilkinson.

The effect of the first vote was to expunge Mr Holland’s no-confidence amendment from the order paper. The voting was 46 against 27, anti-exchange members of the Coalition voting with the Government.

The second division provided a straightout expression of opinion on the question “ That in the opinion of the House there should be a return to free exchange, uncontrolled by the Government and without compensation to the banks.”

The proposal w*as negatived by 43 to 30. On this occasion Messrs Wright, Harris and Veitch (Coalition) and Messrs Atmore, Rushworth, Stallworthy and Wilkinson (Independents) voted for the amendment. Mr M’Dougall was the only Coalitionist to vote against his party on both issues. Another Hostile Amendment.

Reviving the tactics adopted when the United Party was in Opposition ten years ago, the Labour Party returned to the attack and moved a further no-confidence amendment. This suggested that the House should affirm that, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the administration of the Government Parliament should be dissolved and a general election called without delay.

An outburst of laughter from the Ministerial benches greeted the mover, Mr Fraser (Wellington Central). “ Yes,” retorted Mr Fraser, “ the loud laugh bespeaks the vacant mind. What I hear is the old Reform cackle, reinforced by the New Plymouth tremolo.” Mr Fraser suggested that the Coalition promoters of the exchange amendment had placed themselves in the position of convenient lightning conductors for the Government, refusing to take this proposed amendment seriously.

Mr Jull (Waipawa) facetiously said he thought elections were good sport, and he did not mind if they were held every year, but, having regard to the finances of the Labour Party, he thought they might well wait for another two years before seeking an appeal to the electorate. When the House rose, Mr Fraser’s amendment was still under discussion. Two hours’ discussion on pensions for chronic invalids in the afternoon gave the resumption of the Address-in-Reply debate a late start, with the result that only five new speakers were added to the already substantial total of thirty-two.